1. The Aramaic Solution to Jesus’ Conflicting Genealogies
---
The following article is invaluable in solving this centuries-old problem. This is yet more evidence of the
superiority of the Aramaic Scriptures, the Peshitta. It answers the following questions:
• Why are there only list 13 generations listed from the Captivity of Babylon to Jesus, in Matthew's
account? Doesn’t Matthew say there should be 14 generations?
• Why does Luke list 20 generations in the second series, and 22 in the third? If this is the same
Joseph, shouldn't there be 14 generations in the second and third series of Luke as well?
• Why do the lineages of Joseph, the husband of Mary, almost completely differ in the two accounts?
• How can Jesus be the Son of David, if Mary is not a daughter of David?
• If both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of
Solomon, the other through that of Nathan - how can the lines converge in Joseph? How can Joseph
claim descent from King David, through both Nathan and Solomon?
It was written by Paul David Younan, of Peshitta.org
Regards,
Chris

2. Use of 0rbg in Classical and Contemporary Aramaic Thought
Paul David Younan.
Peshitta.org Translation Team
pyounan@peshitta.org
Abstract: In this article an attempt is made to throw some light on 0rbg in relation to the varied usage of the
term in Classical and Contemporary Aramaic, with particular attention paid to the impact on the traditional
understanding of the lineage of Christ as recorded in the Gospels.
INTRODUCTION
Almost since they were first penned down, historian and theologian alike have attempted to reconcile the
discrepancies between the genealogical record of Jesus as recorded by Matthew and Luke.
Traditional Understanding of Matthew's Genealogical Record:
First Series Second Series Third Series
1. Abraham 1. Solomon 1. Salathiel
2. Isaac 2. Roboam 2. Zerubabel
3. Jacob 3. Abia 3. Abiud
4. Judas 4. Asa 4. Eliachim
5. Phares 5. Josaphat 5. Azor
6. Esron 6. Joram 6. Sadoe
7. Aram 7. Ozias 7. Achim
8. Aminadab 8. Joatham 8. Eliud
9. Naasson 9. Achaz 9. Eleazar
10. Salmon 10. Ezechias 10. Mathan
11. Booz 11. Manasses 11. Jacob
12. Obed 12. Amon
12. Joseph
(husband of
Mary)
13. Jesse 13. Josias 13. Jesus
14. David 14. Jechonias

3. Traditional Understanding of Luke's Genealogical Record:
First Series Second Series Third Series
1. Abraham 1. Nathan 1. Salathiel
2. Isaac 2. Methatha 2. Zerubabel
3. Jacob 3. Menna 3. Reza
4. Judas 4. Melea 4. Joanna
5. Phares 5. Eliakim 5. Juda
6. Esron 6. Jona 6. Joseph
7. Aram 7. Joseph 7. Semei
8. Aminadab 8. Judas 8. Mathathias
9. Naasson 9. Simeon 9. Mathath
10. Salmon 10. Levi 10. Nagge
11. Booz 11. Mathat 11. Hesli
12. Obed 12. Jorim 12. Nahum
13. Jesse 13. Eleazar 13. Amos
14. David 14. Joshua 14. Mathathias
15. Her 15. Joseph
16. Helmadan 16. Janne
17. Cosan 17. Melchi
18. Addi 18. Levi
19. Melchi 19. Mathat
20. Neri 20. Heli
21. Joseph
(husband of
Mary)
22. Jesus
Church fathers, whether Augustine and Ambrose in the West, or Eshoa-Dad of Merv and Bar-Hebreaus in
the East, alike struggled to explain in a satisfactory way the contradictions and questions raised by a plain
reading of these texts. None of them were able to successfully demonstrate their conclusions, answer the
myriad of questions raised by their own conclusions, or even agree with one other.
In post-modern secular thought, the attempt has been made to discredit the accounts on the basis that the
authors of the Gospels in question were making exaggerated claims in order to establish a non-existent
lineage for Christ.
In reality, there are very problematic issues raised by a plain reading of these texts - especially within the
confines of the current academically accepted framework, that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were first
penned in Greek.

4. It is only when we refer to the Aramaic story, in an Aramaic psyche, will we be able to finally answer the
puzzling questions raised by the plain reading of the text:
• Why are there only list 13 generations listed from the Captivity of Babylon to Jesus, in
Matthew's account? Doesn’t Matthew say there should be 14 generations?
• Why does Luke list 20 generations in the second series, and 22 in the third? If this is the same
Joseph, shouldn't there be 14 generations in the second and third series of Luke as well?
• Why do the lineages of Joseph, the husband of Mary, almost completely differ in the two
accounts?
• How can Jesus be the Son of David, if Mary is not a daughter of David?
• If both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage
of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan - how can the lines converge in Joseph? How
can Joseph claim descent from King David, through both Nathan and Solomon?
As with most problems that appear complex on the surface, this one has a very simple answer. The answer
lies in the Aramaic original of the Gospel of Matthew, according to the Peshitta version.

5. BACKGROUND OF 0rbg
0rbg (pronounced Gaw-ra) is a noun in the Emphatic state derived from the ancient Semitic verb rbg
(pronounced Ga-bar) - meaning "To be strong, brave, manly, courageous." This term is well attested to in the
other major Semitic languages - rbg (pronounced Gaw-bar) in Hebrew and Ja-br in Arabic. The general
meaning of the Emphatic noun 0rbg is "Man."

6. As used in Matthew 1:16, the word is hrbg which is the Possessive Pronominal form of 0rbg ,
meaning "Her 'Gab-ra.'"
Contextual Usage of 0rbg in the Aramaic New Testament
Although mainly used to mean ‘man’ in a generic sense, the term can also mean ‘husband’ depending on the
context
Why is it that sometimes the general meaning of ‘man’ is increased in specificity, depending on context, to
mean ‘husband?’ For no more reason than saying - ‘I now pronounce you man and wife" can also be said "I
now pronounce you husband and wife." Since a husband is merely a more ‘specific’ type of ‘man’, this
equation of terminology is quite acceptable, even in English.
The question then arises - can the term, when used in proper context, also mean ‘Father?’

7. I believe it can be demonstrated from the Gospels that all three shades of meaning are attested to - depending
on context.
Verses in the Gospels where 0rbg is used to mean the generic ‘man’, although by no means an exhaustive
list, include:
• Matthew 7:24
• Matthew 7:26
• Matthew 8:9
• Matthew 9:9
Please reference the Concordance at www.peshitta.org for a more complete listing for this word.
Some examples of the contextual variant ‘husband’ include:
• Matthew 19:5
• Matthew 19:10
• Mark 10:2
• 1 Corinthians 7:14
• 1 Corinthians 7:16
• 2 Corinthians 11:2
• Ephesians 5:23.
Finally, the contextual variant ‘father’ can be read in:
• Matthew 7:9
• Matthew 21:28
• Matthew 22:2
• and, arguably, Matthew 1:16.
Since the subject matter of this thesis attempts to reconcile the two accounts of Jesus’ lineage, let’s have a
closer look at Matthew 1:16, and a related verse - Matthew 1:19, in the Aramaic of the Peshitta.

8. MATTHEW 1:16 & 1:19
The Aramaic reading in the Peshitta version is:
Myrmd hrbg Pswyl dwl0 Bwq9y
The verse reads: "Jacob fathered Yoseph, the hrbg of Maryam." The word used here, in verse 16, is
0rbg with a 3rd-person feminine pronominal possessive suffix of h (i.e., ‘her Gaw-ra.’)
This word has traditionally been translated ‘husband’, however, the main Semitic term for ‘Husband’, is
f9b ("Ba’la", or, hl9b for ‘Her husband.) Examples of this word can be found in:
• Matthew 1:19
• Mark 10:12
• Luke 2:36
• John 4:16-18
• Romans 7:2-3
• 1 Corinthians 7:4, 7:10, 7:13, 7:16, 7:39
• Ephesians 5:33
• 1 Timothy 3:2
• Titus 1:6.
Why would Matthew use two different terms, in such a short span of writing (3 verses - 1:16 to 1:19), to refer
to Maryam’s ‘husband’, Yoseph?
The fact is, he had to distinguish between two different people named Joseph - Matthew is not referring to
Mary’s husband in verse 16 at all, but rather her father!
Depending on context, it has been shown that 0rbg can mean ‘man, husband or father.’ The usage in
verse 16 would demand that we translate 0rbg as ‘father’, rather than 'husband', since the context is a
genealogy. Verses 18 & 19, however, would demand that we associate that Joseph with her ‘husband’,
since the context is that of marriage.
Matthew, then, is recording the genealogy of Mary, whereas Luke is recording that of Joseph. Which
would be exactly opposite of the currently accepted academic line - that Luke recorded Mary’s lineage while
Matthew recorded that of Joseph.
That would give us 14 generation in the third series of Matthew. It would also explain why Luke has 20
generations in the 2nd series and 22 generations in the 3rd series - i.e., Joseph's lineage did not break out
cleanly in 14-generation groupings, except for the first series. Since Matthew is giving the line of Mary, only
her lineage would be required to break out evenly in 14-generation groupings. That would also explain why
the names are completely different in both the 2nd and 3rd series between the accounts in Matthew and in
Luke. It also demonstrates that both Mary and Joseph were descendents of King David - each through a
separate line!

9. A valid question is - 'Isn't it a fact that lineages generally exclude females?'
The answer to that, generally, is yes. However, the problem is that Mary is the only real human parent that
Jesus had. Jesus was the only person in history who had no human father - whose previous generation
included only one person. So in order to count 14 generations - Mary must be included, even though it
would introduce a female in the lineage. In order to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of David, Mary must
be demonstrated to descend from David's house!
Here is a revised view of the Genealogical Record, according to a more proper understanding of Aramaic
Matthew:
First Series Second Series Third Series
1. Abraham 1. Solomon 1. Salathiel
2. Isaac 2. Roboam 2. Zerubabel
3. Jacob 3. Abia 3. Abiud
4. Judas 4. Asa 4. Eliachim
5. Phares 5. Josaphat 5. Azor
6. Esron 6. Joram 6. Sadoe
7. Aram 7. Ozias 7. Achim
8. Aminadab 8. Joatham 8. Eliud
9. Naasson 9. Achaz 9. Eleazar
10. Salmon 10. Ezechias 10. Mathan
11. Booz 11. Manasses 11. Jacob
12. Obed 12. Amon
12. Joseph
(father of Mary)
13. Jesse 13. Josias 13. Mary
14. David 14. Jechonias 14. Jesus
THE GREEK MISTRANSLATION
Since we know from Patristic writing that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the ‘Hebrew Dialect’ of Aramaic
(Judean Aramaic), and that "everyone" translated it into Greek "as best they could" - it then follows that the
Greeks mistranslated this term as ‘husband’, instead of the more proper contextual variant, ‘father.’
In Greek, the words for ‘husband’, ajnhvr (Aner), and ‘father’ pathvr (Pater) are completely
different. It is impossible for an Aramaic translator of a Greek document to confuse the two - but it is very
easy for a Greek translator of an Aramaic original to mistake the contextual variances in the single term
0rbg

10. THE OLD SYRIAC
According to the modern academically accepted framework, the Peshitta is a revision of the Old Syriac -
which, in turn, is a translation from the Greek.
Since we have already demonstrated that the Church Fathers admitted that Matthew wrote in Aramaic, and
the Greek versions are nothing more than translations - one naturally wonders, how does the "Old Syriac",
and in particular, the Cureton manuscript read?
Once again, the Old Syriac shows itself to be a fraud and a translation directly from the Greek. For Matthew
1:16, it reads:
hl twh 0rykmd Pswy
In English - "Joseph, to whom she was betrothed"
Not surprisingly, it is caught red-handed because it also preserves the original Peshitta reading of hl9b in
verse 19!
The Peshitta is the only Aramaic version that preserved the original reading. The Greek versions were based
on the Peshitta, and the "Old Syriac" is an imposter translated from the Greek - AFTER the mistranslation
had crept into the Greek translations.
THE MEDIEVAL HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS
Dr. James Trimm, of the Society for the Advancement of Nazarene Judaism, has made use of three medieval
manuscripts of Matthew in the Hebrew tongue, known as the Shem Tob (1300's), DuTillet and Munster
versions.
Regarding the age of the earliest manuscript witness to these versions of Matthew, and their similarity, Dr.
Trimm states:
"...one surfaced in the 1300's and the other two in the 1500's.
Shem Tob (1300's) differs the most, while DuTillet and Munster are very similar. However there are many
readings where they all agree together against all other versions (such as in Mt. 1:1). Shem Tob has many
obvious layers of corruption which explains its substantial variances.
I believe they originate from the original Hebrew of Matthew. All three came out of the Jewish
community." (post on the www.peshitta.org discussion forum, dated July 14, 2001.)

11. But, according to all three medieval versions of the Hebrew Matthew, the genealogy of Jesus, is as follows:
First Series Second Series Third Series
1. Abraham 1. Solomon 1. Salathiel
2. Isaac 2. Roboam 2. Zerubabel
3. Jacob 3. Abia 3. Abiud
4. Judas 4. Asa 4. Avner
5. Phares 5. Josaphat 5. Eliachim
6. Esron 6. Joram 6. Azor
7. Aram 7. Ozias 7. Sadoe
8. Aminadab 8. Joatham 8. Achim
9. Naasson 9. Achaz 9. Eliud
10. Salmon 10. Ezechias 10. Eleazar
11. Booz 11. Manasses 11. Mathan
12. Obed 12. Amon 12. Jacob
13. Jesse 13. Josias
13. Joseph
(husband of
Mary)
14. David 14. Jechonias 14. Jesus
These Hebrew versions of Matthew show themselves to be frauds and mere medieval translations from the
Greek and Latin manuscripts since, like their sources, they make the claim that the Joseph mentioned in the
third series is the 'husband' of Maryam.
Secondly, to make up for the obviously lacking 14th generation in the third series, they make up a new name
(Avner) and insert it in between Abiud and Eliachim.
Thirdly, this solution is superficial in that it seemingly only resolves the one issue regarding the 14
generations. But what of all the differences between the names in Matthew and Luke? And the number of
generations in the 2nd and 3rd series of Luke? Or, the problem of exactly which son of David Joseph was
supposedly descended from?
I believe it can be demonstrated with this, and other, examples that Hebrew Matthew never existed - that it
was in Aramaic that Matthew wrote his Gospel, and that by 'the Hebrew dialect' Judean Aramaic was meant.
What can history and tradition and tell us about the original language of Matthew - was it Aramaic or
Hebrew?
Specialists of the Aramaic language have analyzed closely this topic, and have come to distinguish various
Aramaic dialects in the contemporary Palestine of Jesus as testified to by inscriptions thus discovered.

12. Based on this data, they are able to distinguish seven dialects that were shared by seven different localities in
this small region:
• Aramaic of Judea.
• Aramaic of Southern Judea.
• Aramaic of Samaria.
• Aramaic of Galilee.
• Aramaic from beyond Jordan.
• Aramaic from Damascus.
• Aramaic spoken in the Orontes River Basin of Syria.
The Aramaic of Judea was called the 'Hebrew dialect.' It was different from, yet mutually comprehensible
with, the Aramaic of Galilee (the dialect that Jesus spoke.) This is one reason why Peter's (Keepa's) "speech"
(dialect) was recognized during the trial, which happened to be in Judea. Peter spoke Galilean Aramaic,
whereas the inhabitants of Judea spoke a slightly different dialect. It was for these inhabitants of Judea that
Matthew wrote his Gospel.
Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius
maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found
in several ancient witnesses. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and
when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic
that is implied.
Hence, the aforementioned Church Father may have been alluding to Aramaic and not to Hebrew. Besides, as
they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching and evangelization. To be
understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this
language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in
Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated afterwards into Aramaic for use by the common people -
who no longer understood the old language.. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the
Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic.
Even if Matthew recorded the preaching of Jesus (which was in Aramaic) in Hebrew (a ridiculous
assumption) - then the Hebrew would be, as the Greek, second-hand information.

13. NEO-ARAMAIC USAGE OF 0rbg
The term 0rbg is still used today in modern literature. However, as in all languages, sometimes the way a
word is spelled changes over time. For instance, we no longer spell ‘shop’ the way it was spelled centuries
ago - ‘Shoppe.’ Many times, simple variances in spelling arise.
In Modern Eastern, or neo-Aramaic, the word 0rbg can still be spelled the same way, although a variant
using the spelling 0rwg. is attested to. Sometimes the Beth B is spelled with a Waw w in Eastern
Aramaic, according to the vocalization rules of Qushaya and Rukakha (c.f., Yukhanan Bar-Zubi’s Grammar,
13th Century or www.assyrianlanguage.com under ‘Rules for Aspiration’)
Using Oraham’s Dictionary of the Assyrian Language, we can see direct witness that 0rbg means both
‘man’ and ‘husband.’

14. And, that the new variant in spelling is attested to by this dictionary:
According to the Way International's Concordance to the Peshitta, the term can mean 'man' or 'husband.'

15. In a book called 'Dishna d'Saybuthi, shown below, we see a short story using the new variant to mean 'elders
of a household:'
In the above scan, the context of the short story is a description of a holiday the Assyrians of the Hakkari
mountains celebrated during "Khad b’Nisan" (1st of Nisan (April), which is the Assyrian New Year.)
The title is - "The Second Festival/Celebration of the First of Nisan." During this "Festival", which coincided
with the "first rain" in spring, the story states that "all the Fyb Ynb (residents of the house/the entire
houshold), both 0rw9zw 0rwg (elders and young), departed from the home and allowed the rain to fall
upon them, and getting soaked - they would begin to sing- ‘The drops of Nisan, the drops of Nisan.....may
Nisan be blessed!"

16. This article proves that the term 0rwg can mean ‘elders of a household’, since it mentions them alongside
the 0rw9z, "young." This meaning, "elders of a household", is not attested to in the dictionaries referenced
above - just as the meaning "father" is not attested to.
Finally, and the most powerful example - in Kinnara d'Rookha (the Harp of the Spirit), a quarterly published
by the Archbishopric of the Church of the East in Baghdad, Iraq, Vol. 1 No3, 1999, the following fable is
written:
The above scan contains a Fable called "The Fable of the Lion, the Fox and the Son of a Merchant." The
heading, the most important part of this example, contains the following introduction, which, when
translated, means:
Nyrm0 - ‘it is said’
0rbgd - ‘that a father’

17. $n0 - ‘a man’
0rgt -‘who is a merchant’
rd4 - ‘sent’
hrbl - ‘his son’
Frwg0tb - ‘to go trade’
This example is extraordinary in that it demonstrates the contextual usage of 0rbg in a sense that can only
mean ‘father.’ It cannot be translated as ‘man’, since, the word following immediately after it is $n0 - ‘a
man’ (yet another Aramaic term that means ‘man’). So to translate 0rbg as 'man' here would make it
redundant with $n0.
I have also highlighted, later on in the short story, where the son is called 0grt rb "Bar-Tagara", or "son
of the merchant." Additionally, the article also uses the word Yhwb0 - "his father."
So this example makes a very clear case for translating 0rbg as "father", if it is drawn from the proper
context.
OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS
When I started researching this topic, I wanted to check the thesis with a number of professors who work in
the field of Syriac/Aramaic, at some of the world's most prestigious universities. Since I do not (yet) have
permission to quote them by name, I will only summarize their responses to give you an idea of the varying
opinions on this topic.
In response to the question, 'Have you ever seen an instance where 0rbg can be translated 'father' or 'head
of household' in English?'
They wrote:
"Dear Paul: Thanks for the question..... it doesn't seem to be in any of the major Syriac lexicons (I
checked Thomas Odo, Qardahi, Manna, Bar-Bahloul, Payne Smith, Brockelmann, Brun, and Costaz! Nor
is it in the two dictionaries I have to hand of Turoyo [Ritter] and Sureth [Maclean]).

18. As in many languages, I am sure there must be places in Syriac literature where gabra / gabro could be
understood to mean
something more inclusive than just man/ husband, and where it may have the sense you are looking for.
(After all, the New
Testament passages Ephesians 5.23 and 1 Cor 11.3 get you pretty close to this.)
If you find any examples do let me know!"
"Dear Paul: GBRA is from an old Semitic word found in the Hebrew Bible, where it first meant "warrior;
adult male." From there the development into "male head of the household" is not hard to see. It is often
hard to tell from context whether "husband" would be the best translation."
"Dear Paul, A lot of ink has been spilt over this passage in Matthew, and on the two genealogies, both in
antiquity and in modern times, and there seems to be no clear-cut answer to the various problems!
Among Syriac writers I recall there is a long section on the genealogies in Dionysius bar Salibi's
Commentary on the Gospels. As far as gabra is concerned, I suppose it is possible that the reading in
C(ureton) has in mind the early apocryphal traditions about Mary's youth, and where Joseph is
understood as being considerably older and is seen more as her guardian: if so, gabra would more or less
be "protective male". But I can't say I've gone into this possibility, and probably others have."
"Hi Paul: I consulted all my Aramaic and Syriac dictionaries, and could not find even one occurrence
where GBR' meant father."
"Hi Paul, gbra means 'man'. To give it another meaning, would be an inference from context. 'Man of the
house/household' doesn't change the meaning from 'man' in my opinion. I do not know of a context
where such a meaning could be attached."
"Hi Paul, I can't remember seeing gabra used where it could mean father, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
exist somewhere."

19. SOME FINAL THOUGHTS
I could not have stated it better than the world-renowned professor of Aramaic who said, in his reply above,
that "a lot of ink has been spilt" over this passage in Matthew. One cannot help but to wonder if it was all
spilt in vain, if it had to be spilt at all - if only we would at last open our eyes and realize the obvious.
Sometimes the hardest explanation to accept is the simplest one - because it's too simple. Occam's Razor
would not have needed a name if it was well understood and implemented.
The root of this problem is as old as the Church itself. The repercussions of the struggle between Jew and
Gentile for control in the one Body of Christ is being felt today. Hellenism in the West, over time, won. The
Semitic Church - aside from the small remnant that survived to the "East" of the border, by all accounts
vanished and was driven out during the struggle.
They say that history is written by the victors. There is no better example of this principle in action than the
Greek vs. Aramaic New Testament debate. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence that would indicate
otherwise, the academic world still clasps tightly around the legacy of this historic struggle.
Such a simple and elegant solution to Matthew 1:16 - and the myriad of problems posed by the traditional
understanding of this verse, is tossed away because it rocks the proverbial boat too much. It would make too
much sense - if only the scholarly atmosphere was conducive to it, of course.
I think about another one of the responses to my question posed above, essentially stating that the definition
is lacking support in the dictionaries.
Are our languages, and thoughts, to be governed by dictionaries? I thought it was the other way around.
It is inherent in our human nature to overcompensate, to over-explain the simple. The meaning of Occam's
Razor - neatly summarized, is that the truth is simple. And that is what F=y4p (the Peshitta) is all about.
Paul D. Younan